PDA

View Full Version : Jeb Bush, GOP: Time to leave Reagan behind



Rockntractor
05-03-2009, 09:51 PM
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said Saturday that it's time for the Republican Party to give up its "nostalgia" for the heyday of the Reagan era and look forward, even if it means stealing the winning strategy deployed by Democrats in the 2008 election.

"You can't beat something with nothing, and the other side has something. I don't like it, but they have it, and we have to be respectful and mindful of that," Mr. Bush said.

The former president's brother, often mentioned as a potential candidate in 2012, said President Obama's message of hope and change during the 2008 campaign clearly resonated with Americans.

"So our ideas need to be forward looking and relevant. I felt like there was a lot of nostalgia and the good old days in the (Republican) messaging. I mean, it's great, but it doesn't draw people toward your cause," Mr. Bush said.

"From the conservative side, it's time for us to listen first, to learn a little bit, to upgrade our message a little bit, to not be nostalgic about the past because, you know, things do ebb and flow."


Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/03/gop-lis... /

It's time to leave the Bushes behind!!

lacarnut
05-04-2009, 12:53 AM
The last thing conservatives need is another wimpy ass Repub like Daddy Bush and Jr. Jeb needs to shut the f. up.

AlmostThere
05-04-2009, 07:03 AM
Someone should tell that idiot that the longing for the Reagan era is much more than about the man himself. It's also about the ideals Republicans valued then and ideals are timeless. Straying away from those ideals has gotten us where we are today and this fool wants us to totally abandon them?

Water Closet
05-04-2009, 07:46 AM
Just watched Eric Cantor on CNN discussing this. His mantra, repeated several times during the interview, was "Personal liberty, free markets, and indivualism." When asked directly, "what about abortion, gay marriage, and illegal immigration," he dodged qucker than Ben Stiller.

Combine this movement with the tax day tea parties and maybe, just maybe the Republicans are waking up to the fact that most of us don't really care about their social issues and don't want government in our bedrooms or our wallets.

Lars1701a
05-04-2009, 08:47 AM
Just watched Eric Cantor on CNN discussing this. His mantra, repeated several times during the interview, was "Personal liberty, free markets, and indivualism." When asked directly, "what about abortion, gay marriage, and illegal immigration," he dodged qucker than Ben Stiller.

Combine this movement with the tax day tea parties and maybe, just maybe the Republicans are waking up to the fact that most of us don't really care about their social issues and don't want government in our bedrooms or our wallets.

You never answered me on why Marrage has anything to do with the bedroom?

Goldwater
05-04-2009, 10:24 AM
Time to leave Bush behind more like, but they'll leave anything behind before Bush republicanism.

tacitus
05-04-2009, 10:38 AM
"You can't beat something with nothing, and the other side has something. I don't like it, but they have it, and we have to be respectful and mindful of that," Mr. Bush said.


What is it that the democrat party has that is so appealing to the masses? I'd say socialism and if that is what Jeb wants to respect, he is welcome to do what ever he wants. But I will say that the republican is a shell of it's former self, stands for nothing and is indistinguishable from the democrat party. It will be a cold day in hell before I would ever vote for another Bush to lead this nation, or anyone like the Bush clan.

lacarnut
05-04-2009, 10:56 AM
Just watched Eric Cantor on CNN discussing this. His mantra, repeated several times during the interview, was "Personal liberty, free markets, and indivualism." When asked directly, "what about abortion, gay marriage, and illegal immigration," he dodged qucker than Ben Stiller.

Combine this movement with the tax day tea parties and maybe, just maybe the Republicans are waking up to the fact that most of us don't really care about their social issues and don't want government in our bedrooms or our wallets.

Could be that atheists/liberals/libertarians do not care about abortion and gay marriage but Christians do. After gay marriage, what is next. Legalization of drugs and prostitution. This country's morals are going to hell in a hand basket. As a conservative, not a Rockefeller Republican, I do not want to go down that road.

I vote for the Bush's 4 times; not going to make it a 5th time. If the Repubs nominate another RINO like McCain, the Democrats will win again. The Repubs need to stand for family values and smaller government.

Rockntractor
05-04-2009, 11:12 AM
The more republicans try to fix the party the more they embrace the problem. I think Arlen Specter needs some company. It would be easier for him to make the transition if he had some friends along. McCain, jeb Bush and the rest of the rino's can leave anytime.

lacarnut
05-04-2009, 11:23 AM
The more republicans try to fix the party the more they embrace the problem. I think Arlen Specter needs some company. It would be easier for him to make the transition if he had some friends along. McCain, jeb Bush and the rest of the rino's can leave anytime.

The only way the party can ever recover is to get rid of RINO assholes like McCain, Bush, Specter and Rockefeller Repubs. I say good riddance and lets get back to the principles and policies of Reagan.

hazlnut
05-04-2009, 01:07 PM
Could be that atheists/liberals/libertarians do not care about abortion and gay marriage but Christians do. After gay marriage, what is next. Legalization of drugs and prostitution. This country's morals are going to hell in a hand basket. As a conservative, not a Rockefeller Republican, I do not want to go down that road.

I vote for the Bush's 4 times; not going to make it a 5th time. If the Repubs nominate another RINO like McCain, the Democrats will win again. The Repubs need to stand for family values and smaller government.

More and more, smaller government and the Republican stand on social issues seems to be mutually exclusive.

Water Closet
05-04-2009, 01:11 PM
More and more smaller government and the Republican stand on social issues seem to be mutually exclusive.

Ah, but there's the rub. As long as government is viewed as the enforcer of morals, it will grow. And, both liberals and conservatives view it that way. Liberals focus on "social morals," i.e., providing a safety net for the poor, the disadvantaged, the generally unlucky, in terms of housing, food, health care, etc. Conservatives focus on "spiritual morals," i.e., enforcing the moral laws of God, in terms of maintaining the sanctity of marriage, ensuring that sins like prostitution are not committed.

Take prostitution, for example. What "crime" is being committed if two consenting adults exchange money for sex? Certainly there are crimes associated with prostitution, such as sex slavery, intimidation by pimps, beatings by Johns, but these are crimes in their own right, independent of the actual act of prostitution. It's against the law to kidnap people, for example. And they all are crimes because they involve either physical harm to others or forcing them to perform acts against their will. However, neither of these attributes (physical harm or forced behaviour) are associated with the actual act of prostitution. The act is only a "crime" because it's viewed as a spiritual sin.

In these sorts of matters (consensual acts between consulting adults) as well as "fairness" issues, the government should remain "morally neutral," neither criminalizing nor encouraging them. That is the only way that the size of government (federal, state, and local) can realistically be reduced. Think of the money saved by not waging the War on Drugs at the federal level or by getting rid of prostitution laws at the local level!

A good friend of mine here often makes the argument that should the government, for example, legalize gay marriage it would be enforcing "my morals and not his." But this is a specious argument on its face as by taking no position on an issue between consenting adults the government is neither prohibiting (his morals) nor encouraging (my morals) that issue. In that case, it's only the individuals partaking or not partaking in the act (issue) that are supporting a moral position. And that's what I (naively) thought at one time that conservatives were all about -- individual liberties, responsibility, and freedom of choice.

hazlnut
05-04-2009, 01:13 PM
Just watched Eric Cantor on CNN discussing this. His mantra, repeated several times during the interview, was "Personal liberty, free markets, and indivualism." When asked directly, "what about abortion, gay marriage, and illegal immigration," he dodged qucker than Ben Stiller.

Combine this movement with the tax day tea parties and maybe, just maybe the Republicans are waking up to the fact that most of us don't really care about their social issues and don't want government in our bedrooms or our wallets.

Well said-- here's my question:

At this point, could the party ever survive a fiscal/social split? Are they bound to the marriage of convenience to Christian evangelicals?

Would a new fiscal conservative party draw enough independent voters and moderate Dems to become relevant in one election cycle?

Lager
05-04-2009, 01:17 PM
Funny, I am conservative and I don't feel that government should enforce morals. Any conservatives on here that do? I'd be interested in hearing why you think government can ever hope to enforce any morality.

noonwitch
05-04-2009, 01:20 PM
Economics drive swing voters and swing voters are who decides presidential elections. I'm a pro-choice, feminist, gay-marriage supporting liberal. Me and my types always vote democratic in the modern age. We're probably 25-30% of the electorate. The hard core, anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, religious conservatives equal a similar percentage of the electorate, and they, since Reagan, almost always vote republican.


The swing voters don't care about abortion. They may care about keeping gay marriage illegal, but it's not their most important issue. They care about the economy and national defense. If a candidate wins them over, he or she wins the election. Obama won them over this time-mostly because the Bush administration was so widely viewed as a failure on all fronts.

I don't think Sarah Palin is the candidate to do that. She's never going to be taken seriously by the public at large. Whether that's fair or not is debatable, but if she's at the top of the ticket in 2012, the GOP is going to lose, barring a massive failure on Obama's part that results in either total economic collapse or a terrorist attack-maybe not even the latter, as we were attacked on Bush's watch and he was able to convince enough of the voters that keeping him in office was the best way to deal with the terrorists. She'll remain popular with conservatives, maybe even with enough to get the nomination. But if the GOP really wants to win in 2012, they'll run someone else.

marinejcksn
05-04-2009, 01:31 PM
Funny, I am conservative and I don't feel that government should enforce morals.

Damn straight. Time and time again it's been proven: you can't Legislate morality. Look at what Prohibition did to this country; it was the single biggest contributor to boosting Organized Crime into the powerhouse it became. Anytime the Government starts getting involved in personal issues of morals, watch out.

Lars1701a
05-04-2009, 01:36 PM
Damn straight. Time and time again it's been proven: you can't Legislate morality. Look at what Prohibition did to this country; it was the single biggest contributor to boosting Organized Crime into the powerhouse it became. Anytime the Government starts getting involved in personal issues of morals, watch out.

but they shouldnt legislate imorality either. i.e. Gay marrage, drugs and others.

hazlnut
05-04-2009, 01:44 PM
Think of the money saved by not waging the War on Drugs at the federal level or by getting rid of prostitution laws at the local level!

That's an interesting question--Would legalized Red Light districts work in today's American cities? I agree with the pragmatic argument behind moving in that direction--I'm not sure about the economics of it--unintended consequences and all.

Do the sex crimes stats differ in Nevada and Rhode Island? -- 1 of many issues that would have to addressed.


A good friend of mine here often makes the argument that should the government, for example, legalize gay marriage it would be enforcing "my morals and not his." But this is a specious argument on its face as by taking no position on an issue between consenting adults the government is neither prohibiting (his morals) nor encouraging (my morals) that issue. In that case, it's only the individuals partaking or not partaking in the act (issue) that are supporting a moral position. And that's what I (naively) thought at one time that conservatives were all about -- individual liberties, responsibility, and freedom of choice.

Agreed-- The notion that gets thrown around a lot in CA is the right of the people to 'define' marriage--"Don't we have the right to define marriage?" Sure, but isn't that done during the ceremony--and not at the clerk's window at city hall? Individuals can define it as they see fit--Churches are protected by the separation doctrine.

Honestly, this issue, I think we're about 1/2 generation away from a wider acceptance among moderates and independents--4-6 election cycles. Ironically, California may be the new South as far as tolerance on this issue.

noonwitch
05-04-2009, 02:31 PM
That's an interesting question--Would legalized Red Light districts work in today's American cities? I agree with the pragmatic argument behind moving in that direction--I'm not sure about the economics of it--unintended consequences and all.

Do the sex crimes stats differ in Nevada and Rhode Island? -- 1 of many issues that would have to addressed.



Agreed-- The notion that gets thrown around a lot in CA is the right of the people to 'define' marriage--"Don't we have the right to define marriage?" Sure, but isn't that done during the ceremony--and not at the clerk's window at city hall? Individuals can define it as they see fit--Churches are protected by the separation doctrine.

Honestly, this issue, I think we're about 1/2 generation away from a wider acceptance among moderates and independents--4-6 election cycles. Ironically, California may be the new South as far as tolerance on this issue.



Prostitution and drug abuse are both illegal under Detroit and Michigan laws. Both are de facto legal in Detroit, because there are not enough cops to enforce the law. I can drive around and see people smoking pot on their front porches, in broad daylight. I think prostitution might be a better situation if it was legalized and zoned out of areas where there are children around, but it also could end up being an even worse nightmare than it already is. I'm pretty sure that legalizing crack and hard drugs (including any lab-made hallucinogen) is a bad idea. Pot, on the other hand, well, we could get a lot of revenue out of that one, with little risk of societal harm. Medical marijuana is legal now in Michigan, and has been in Detroit for a few years, now. It's not much farther to legalizing it for everyone, although I think that court officials will be pissed off about it-if they can't take kids away from parents solely for smoking dope, that will cut into the money the drug testing and drug treatment programs are making from court-ordered testing and treatment. If the drug testing and treatment programs aren't making money from court-ordered referrals, they won't have money to donate to judges' re-election campaigns, not to mention those of drug warrior legislators.

marinejcksn
05-04-2009, 02:44 PM
I'm pretty sure that legalizing crack and hard drugs is a bad idea.

Maybe this is where I'm just young and naive, but I can't picture the country completely destroying itself if we legalized all drugs. People who want to do dope already do it; just because it's suddenly all legal isn't going to encourage people who would never touch drugs to suddenly become a crack whore. It's like with Alcohol and cigarettes; both are proven to be bad for your health and still a lot of people enjoy them. BUT, just because they're legal doesn't mean everybody smokes or drinks. I know tons of people that never drink, just as a personal choice they make. I think the same would happen with drugs.

Water Closet
05-04-2009, 02:48 PM
but they shouldnt legislate imorality either. i.e. Gay marrage, drugs and others.

Disengaging the government from intervention in these activities is not "legislating." The fact that there are no laws prohibiting certain consensual activities does not mean that the government is forcing people to participate in them.

lacarnut
05-04-2009, 02:58 PM
Funny, I am conservative and I don't feel that government should enforce morals. Any conservatives on here that do? I'd be interested in hearing why you think government can ever hope to enforce any morality.

I don't want the government to pass new laws to promote gay marriage. That is a moral position that I think the government should uphold. Nothing stop the fags from butt fucking each other in the confines of their own homes.

It looks like abortion is settled law. So that is a red herring.

Drugs--go ahead and screw you mind up with drugs. If the government does not try to protect you from doing stupid things, then let's get rid of the police. The murder and crime rate will go up but what the heck we will save a lot of government money. After all, it is your body and we all know the war on crime is going up, up and up.

Prostitution--Looks like Amsterdam has closed most of the red light district. Don't tell me it could be because of crime, drugs and disease and turning it into business shops. Legalization of prostitution and drugs is such a farce by governmental officials because they want to tax it.

Legalization of gambling is another stupid idea that the government got involved in. Florida was one of the first states to legalize the lottery. The battle cry was that it was for education. Wrong. Funding for education the first year stayed the same. The politicians just reduced the amount of funding from the previous year to equal what funding was for the year that the lottery was initiated which resulted in no increase. Them politicians are slick fellows.

It is kinda funny that those that support legalization of drugs, prostitution, gambling don't realize that the government will regulate and tax the shit out of those entities. More government employees to hire. I thought you guys were for less government intervention. You can not have it both ways.

marinejcksn
05-04-2009, 03:56 PM
It is kinda funny that those that support legalization of drugs, prostitution, gambling don't realize that the government will regulate and tax the shit out of those entities. More government employees to hire. I thought you guys were for less government intervention. You can not have it both ways.

It's exactly because I know the government will tax these enterprises that I'm in favor of legalizing them. The Government already taxes alcohol and tobacco and would probably follow suit with drugs. Think of the billions in tax dollars that would be generated from legalizing pot alone which we could use to close our budget gap (as long as we don't let the Government waste the cash on more social programs, which you have a good arguement there).

Gambling, prostitution and the like are examples of things we should be free to do if we wish. Not everyone will ruin their life gambling and drugging until they're in the gutter; BUT if we want to be truly free they should have the right to do so. It's all about personal responsibility. But that's the critical point; without personal responsibility it would all backfire.

Lars1701a
05-04-2009, 04:45 PM
Disengaging the government from intervention in these activities is not "legislating." The fact that there are no laws prohibiting certain consensual activities does not mean that the government is forcing people to participate in them.

We are a country of laws and if the laws condone perverted behaviors what does that say about our country?

Water Closet
05-04-2009, 04:51 PM
We are a country of laws and if the laws condone perverted behaviors what do they say about our country?

Laws don't "condone" behaviour; they may prohibit certain behaviours or they may discourage/encourage them (typically financially either through taxes or tax incentives), but they don't condone. In particular, the absence of laws indicates the neutrality, not the favor or disfavor, of government regarding the behaviour.

lacarnut
05-04-2009, 05:03 PM
It's exactly because I know the government will tax these enterprises that I'm in favor of legalizing them. The Government already taxes alcohol and tobacco and would probably follow suit with drugs. Think of the billions in tax dollars that would be generated from legalizing pot alone which we could use to close our budget gap (as long as we don't let the Government waste the cash on more social programs, which you have a good arguement there).

Gambling, prostitution and the like are examples of things we should be free to do if we wish. Not everyone will ruin their life gambling and drugging until they're in the gutter; BUT if we want to be truly free they should have the right to do so. It's all about personal responsibility. But that's the critical point; without personal responsibility it would all backfire.

What ever happened to idea of keeping more of our money rather than giving it to the government in the form of taxes? Like I said, legalizing gambling was supposed to be the cure all for government budgets. It did not work out that way in Florida. More taxes will not be spent in an propriety manner. What makes you think they will? If you think politicians will go on a diet regardless of the increased amount of taxes that they collect, I have a bridge to sell you. Additionally, states will hire more governmental employees to run these entities. I thought this was against libertarian principals. Looks like no one is going to address that point. A year ago, private industry was hiring at the rate of around 4% while hiring in the governmental sector was running at 17%. It is my belief that government should freeze hiring. That sounds conservative to me.

States like CA could partly dig their way out of their financial mess by drilling for oil in the offshore area. Would you rather have several hundred oil field workers making big salaries or a bunch of pot heads growing weed. The next step to legalization of weed is legalization of other drugs.

My oldest stepson died of an overdose several months ago. We were not close but I do believe there are many, many stories like him. Do I believe that I am my brother's keeper. You damn right I do. That's why I don't want to legalize every filthy habit known to mankind just so you can say I am free.

Rockntractor
05-04-2009, 05:57 PM
I really hate to agree with toilet and weasel nuts on anything but legalizing drugs does not make you into someone that condones them. Disagreeing with prohibition dosn't make you an alcoholic either.

ReaganForRus
05-04-2009, 05:58 PM
Someone should tell that idiot that the longing for the Reagan era is much more than about the man himself. It's also about the ideals Republicans valued then and ideals are timeless. Straying away from those ideals has gotten us where we are today and this fool wants us to totally abandon them?

Bingo!!!!!!!. you have to remember Reagan had a focus, a vision, and most of all, discipline. The "wannabe's" of the GOP always touted the "Big Tent" philosophy of Reagan. Reagan stated for the fact that he wasn't agreeing with the "Big Tent" analogy, it was that the people agreed with him, that is why people were proud to be Republicans. The Reagan era ended in January, 1989. His successors are the ones that squandered the opportunity, not Reagan, and particularly not the people that still honor Reagan for what he STOOD for.

The GOP is doomed if they can't figure that people want values, not Democrat lite.

You adhere to time honored principles and values and you win like Reagan. You start going Sally Field (You like me!........you really, really like me!) and you end up like Bush Sr or McCain.

The RINO's still don't get it

Water Closet
05-04-2009, 06:01 PM
It's exactly because I know the government will tax these enterprises that I'm in favor of legalizing them. The Government already taxes alcohol and tobacco and would probably follow suit with drugs. Think of the billions in tax dollars that would be generated from legalizing pot alone which we could use to close our budget gap (as long as we don't let the Government waste the cash on more social programs, which you have a good arguement there).

Gambling, prostitution and the like are examples of things we should be free to do if we wish. Not everyone will ruin their life gambling and drugging until they're in the gutter; BUT if we want to be truly free they should have the right to do so. It's all about personal responsibility. But that's the critical point; without personal responsibility it would all backfire.

The argument that the government may (or even probably will) tax a certain behaviour is not a rational argument for or against legalizing that behaviour. Really, the only basic arguments should be is the behaviour consensual among those able to give consent and does it do no harm to others not participating in the behaviour. If the activity meets these two criteria, it's none of the government's business.

ReaganForRus
05-04-2009, 06:08 PM
The only way the party can ever recover is to get rid of RINO assholes like McCain, Bush, Specter and Rockefeller Repubs. I say good riddance and lets get back to the principles and policies of Reagan.

Funny, in looking at your post, each and every one of the RINO's you mentioned rode the Reagan Revolution like a racehorse........now that the horse is in need of training, a good rub down, rest and a bucket of oats and water, they jump off, and say how much of a nag the horse was. Face it.......Reagan was groomed to be President. from his days as president of SAG, to his spokeman's days with GE, through Death Valley Days, and his political runs for Governor and President, he focused on his vision and dream of America. What he believed with all his heart and soul was the innate goodness of America and it's people.

Too bad that today's pols are more interested in getting re-elected (specter comes to mind), rather than doing what is best for the American people.

Rockntractor
05-04-2009, 06:29 PM
I am not sure how this thread turned into an arguement about drug legalization and behavior modification. Most conservatives are protesting enviromental taxation,government motors, government banks, endless spending and borrowing, gun rights,states rights etc. This is where we are merging with democrats.

Water Closet
05-04-2009, 06:33 PM
I am not sure how this thread turned into an arguement about drug legalization and behavior modification. Most conservatives are protesting enviromental taxation,government motors, government banks, endless spending and borrowing, gun rights,states rights etc. This is where we are merging with democrats.

And I think the economic issues you describe are exactly those that this GOP group (Bush, Romney, Cantor) are emphasizing. In other words, they are, at the very least, avoiding, at the very best, abandoning the concerns of the social conservatives, i.e., gay marriage, abortion, drugs and prostitution, etc.

Rockntractor
05-04-2009, 06:38 PM
And I think the economic issues you describe are exactly those that this GOP group (Bush, Romney, Cantor) are emphasizing. In other words, they are, at the very least, avoiding, at the very best, abandoning the concerns of the social conservatives, i.e., gay marriage, abortion, drugs and prostitution, etc.
McCain was part of this little group. he support global warming taxes and voted for the first bailouts.

marinejcksn
05-04-2009, 06:51 PM
I am not sure how this thread turned into an arguement about drug legalization and behavior modification. Most conservatives are protesting enviromental taxation,government motors, government banks, endless spending and borrowing, gun rights,states rights etc. This is where we are merging with democrats.

That was my bust. I kind of hijacked the thread with my Libertarian views when it touched on the drugs. :o

The issues you raised are a lot of what should be focussed on, and it seems like the GOP isn't taking it seriously.

lacarnut
05-04-2009, 07:01 PM
And I think the economic issues you describe are exactly those that this GOP group (Bush, Romney, Cantor) are emphasizing. In other words, they are, at the very least, avoiding, at the very best, abandoning the concerns of the social conservatives, i.e., gay marriage, abortion, drugs and prostitution, etc.

You are the one that brought up gay marriage, abortion, drugs. See YOUR post #4. Avoiding social issues is wrong headed in my opinion. Conservatives that I know do not want to legalize drugs and prostitution and add a swarm of new governmental employees to bloat government even further. You can not have it both ways.

In my opinion, Bush and Romney are RINO's, and I don't want a Rockefeller Republican to represent the party next time around. We tried that with McCain; if he had not put a true conservative on the ticket, he would have gotten slaughtered.

Water Closet
05-04-2009, 08:50 PM
You are the one that brought up gay marriage, abortion, drugs. See YOUR post #4. Avoiding social issues is wrong headed in my opinion. Conservatives that I know do not want to legalize drugs and prostitution and add a swarm of new governmental employees to bloat government even further. You can not have it both ways.

In my opinion, Bush and Romney are RINO's, and I don't want a Rockefeller Republican to represent the party next time around. We tried that with McCain; if he had not put a true conservative on the ticket, he would have gotten slaughtered.

My post was merely quoting the question and response of Eric Cantor (R-VA). Indepdents don't give a f**k about the whacky-whacky's social issues. If the GOP wants to regain any semblance of power, they need to concentrate on economic issues and abandon their social platform. That will attract the independents and the religious right can then either stay home and pay higher taxes, vote 3rd part or D and pay higher taxes, or vote R, pay lower taxes and watch the country to to hell for its sins. Guess which one they'll pick.

samurai
05-04-2009, 09:14 PM
My thoughts:

I'm a conservative and a Reagan Republican. The Bushs' lackluster performances, soft-spined conservatism, and utter unwillingness to lead the conservative movement the way Reagan did are a big reason why so many conservatives think back fondly to 20+ years ago instead of 1 or 2 years ago. Have you ever heard anyone say "I'm a Bush Republican/conservative"? I haven't. They were very pale shadows of the last great Republican president, and we would do far better to emulate and look to Reagan than the RINOS or "Democrats lite".

Legalizing drugs very definitely will greatly increase their usage. Many people don't do drugs simply because they obey the law, don't want to go to jail, and because they don't know anyone who supplies drugs. Legalizing it is putting a great big "Hey folks, it's ok to do drugs now!" sign out. Many more people will try it, experiment, and become hooked. You'll be able to buy it at the local supermarket like alcohol and tobacco, eliminating the difficulty in finding a dealer. And kids will start drugs in larger numbers because "Hey, it wouldn't be legal if it could really hurt you, right?" A basic truth of life is that if you harshly punish something you generally get less of it, and if you reward something, you get more of it. There are many examples of this that people can cite. If we THINK the number of drug abusers and users is high now, with harsh penalties, just wait until you remove all penalties and obstacles to trying drugs, and see how high the numbers can really climb. If theft were legalized, and you could shoplift or steal without any legal penalties, do you think that theft would increase in America? There is already a lot of theft, and the police spend a great deal of time and money chasing thieves, so should we save that money and just make it legal to steal? Does anyone think the number of people who would steal would not skyrocket if it were no longer illegal? And the same goes for every single crime out there, from speeding up to murder. How many of them do you think would not increase if there were no longer any legal penalties at all for it?

lacarnut
05-04-2009, 09:20 PM
My post was merely quoting the question and response of Eric Cantor (R-VA). Indepdents don't give a f**k about the whacky-whacky's social issues. If the GOP wants to regain any semblance of power, they need to concentrate on economic issues and abandon their social platform. That will attract the independents and the religious right can then either stay home and pay higher taxes, vote 3rd part or D and pay higher taxes, or vote R, pay lower taxes and watch the country to to hell for its sins. Guess which one they'll pick.

Conservatives and Independents do not want to put a heathen in office who is for legalizing drugs and prostitution. Nothing wacky-wacky about that, and I could give a F**k what a jackass like Cantor has to say. Of course, many atheists and liberals have the same opinion as you. You sound like a banned poster (CW) who despises anyone that is religious. The majority of independents reject your sleazeball ideals. If the Repub party does not stand for a pro family social platform, their party, not mine, will go to hell in a hand basket.

Water Closet
05-04-2009, 09:48 PM
Conservatives and Independents do not want to put a heathen in office who is for legalizing drugs and prostitution. Nothing wacky-wacky about that, and I could give a F**k what a jackass like Cantor has to say. Of course, many atheists and liberals have the same opinion as you. You sound like a banned poster (CW) who despises anyone that is religious. The majority of independents reject your sleazeball ideals. If the Repub party does not stand for a pro family social platform, their party, not mine, will go to hell in a hand basket.

Independents don't give a crap about the social consevative's agenda. That's why, when the R's stuck to their social agenda (Robetrs and Alitio, gay marriage, stem-cell research, "lay back and think of God and England"), but abandoned their fiscal conservativism, the Independents abandoned them. The ONLY reason Independents stuck with the Rs was their fiscal conservativism; we always felt their social conservcatism was a disease of some sort, like swine flu, of which, one day, they might be cured.

That's why, today, 21% of Americans identify themselves as Republicans. Enjoy your very tight-knit, rapturous oblivion.

And I'm not quite sure why I should sound like a poster called "WC" ... ooopps .... "CW."

lacarnut
05-04-2009, 10:21 PM
Independents don't give a crap about the social consevative's agenda. That's why, when the R's stuck to their social agenda (Robetrs and Alitio, gay marriage, stem-cell research, "lay back and think of God and England"), but abandoned their fiscal conservativism, the Independents abandoned them. The ONLY reason Independents stuck with the Rs was their fiscal conservativism; we always felt their social conservcatism was a disease of some sort, like swine flu, of which, one day, they might be cured.

That's why, today, 21% of Americans identify themselves as Republicans. Enjoy your very tight-knit, rapturous oblivion.

And I'm not quite sure why I should sound like a poster called "WC" ... ooopps .... "CW."

If you had a brain, you would know why only 21% identify themselves with Repubs. That's because Repubs have jumped into bed with Democ. on spending, earmarks plus the economy went into the crapper and Americans are tired of war. Biden, Hillary or just about anyone in the Democ. party could have beaten McCain. Your assertion that Independents abandonded Repubs because of social issues is a bunch of horse shit. They abandonded them because Obama and the Democ. offered them hope and change. In another year, that percentage will rise because of the O's socialistic policies. Remember, the Repub. landslide during Bubba's mid term election. FYI, that is the norm; so the Repubs are down but not out.

You should try some of that rapturous oblivion; it might transform you from being like CW...ooopps I mean WC

SaintLouieWoman
05-04-2009, 11:16 PM
My thoughts:

I'm a conservative and a Reagan Republican. The Bushs' lackluster performances, soft-spined conservatism, and utter unwillingness to lead the conservative movement the way Reagan did are a big reason why so many conservatives think back fondly to 20+ years ago instead of 1 or 2 years ago. Have you ever heard anyone say "I'm a Bush Republican/conservative"? I haven't. They were very pale shadows of the last great Republican president, and we would do far better to emulate and look to Reagan than the RINOS or "Democrats lite".

Legalizing drugs very definitely will greatly increase their usage. Many people don't do drugs simply because they obey the law, don't want to go to jail, and because they don't know anyone who supplies drugs. Legalizing it is putting a great big "Hey folks, it's ok to do drugs now!" sign out. Many more people will try it, experiment, and become hooked. You'll be able to buy it at the local supermarket like alcohol and tobacco, eliminating the difficulty in finding a dealer. And kids will start drugs in larger numbers because "Hey, it wouldn't be legal if it could really hurt you, right?" A basic truth of life is that if you harshly punish something you generally get less of it, and if you reward something, you get more of it. There are many examples of this that people can cite. If we THINK the number of drug abusers and users is high now, with harsh penalties, just wait until you remove all penalties and obstacles to trying drugs, and see how high the numbers can really climb. If theft were legalized, and you could shoplift or steal without any legal penalties, do you think that theft would increase in America? There is already a lot of theft, and the police spend a great deal of time and money chasing thieves, so should we save that money and just make it legal to steal? Does anyone think the number of people who would steal would not skyrocket if it were no longer illegal? And the same goes for every single crime out there, from speeding up to murder. How many of them do you think would not increase if there were no longer any legal penalties at all for it?

OMG, the voice of reason here! :eek: Thank you very much for posting this.

I am derided on occasion at my office by my sales manager, who constantly says "you and your principles". To me that is a badge of honor. It's easy to go down the sleazy path. I'm not much of a churchgoer, but have certain core values.

It's time the US turns back to its moral core. I don't think it's just the "whacky whacks" who feel that way. Many prefer to not feel dirty about the values expressed by the current administration.

I think the tea parties reflect the number of people who feel the values of the Democrats just aren't right, but don't know what to do to change them. I have a friend who expresses distress with current conditions with Obama, but said there is nothing she can do. I said that she needs to express her convictions and not back down to the weasles of the world. Maybe more of us should wave that tea bag. It obviously annoys the annointed one.

lacarnut
05-04-2009, 11:30 PM
OMG, the voice of reason here! :eek: Thank you very much for posting this.

I am derided on occasion at my office by my sales manager, who constantly says "you and your principles". To me that is a badge of honor. It's easy to go down the sleazy path. I'm not much of a churchgoer, but have certain core values.

It's time the US turns back to its moral core. I don't think it's just the "whacky whacks" who feel that way. Many prefer to not feel dirty about the values expressed by the current administration.

I think the tea parties reflect the number of people who feel the values of the Democrats just aren't right, but don't know what to do to change them. I have a friend who expresses distress with current conditions with Obama, but said there is nothing she can do. I said that she needs to express her convictions and not back down to the weasles of the world. Maybe more of us should wave that tea bag. It obviously annoys the annointed one.

Amen to that sister. The wacky wacky heathens will drag this country into the gutter if we let them.

hazlnut
05-05-2009, 12:02 AM
My post was merely quoting the question and response of Eric Cantor (R-VA). Indepdents don't give a f**k about the whacky-whacky's social issues. If the GOP wants to regain any semblance of power, they need to concentrate on economic issues and abandon their social platform.

I agree--but again, what I'm questioning is whether or not the Republican party can ever cut loose from their marriage of convenience with the social conservatives/evangelical values voters.

Are they willing to risk losing a substantial portion of their base with the hopes of winning back a huge number of moderates and independents desperate for fiscally responsible leadership?

A return to the traditional strict conservative policy--aka classic liberalism--would not mean letting the evangelicals form their own third party. Remember, it's 'values' base now calling the fiscal conservatives: RINO--republican in name only. The value voters have too strong a hold on the Republican 'brand' for the Rockafeller/fiscal conservatives to take it back.

The marriage of convenience either continues or the fiscal conservatives jump ship and form a new party with moderate Dems and independents. I don't see this happening--at least not anytime soon.

The way fiscal conservatives recite social issue talking points--fighting down the urge to wince. They into the 'marriage' for the long haul. There are a number of pundits that I don't believe honestly believe what they're saying on social issues--but they go along with it for the sake of party unity and holding the base.

There's an interesting documentary coming out that 'outs' a number of DC gay conservatives. They're saying that Larry Craig was just the tip of the ice burg. It will be interesting to see the reaction from both fiscal and social conservatives. The film is called: Outrage.

Water Closet
05-05-2009, 01:02 AM
OMG, the voice of reason here! :eek: Thank you very much for posting this.

I am derided on occasion at my office by my sales manager, who constantly says "you and your principles". To me that is a badge of honor. It's easy to go down the sleazy path. I'm not much of a churchgoer, but have certain core values.

It's time the US turns back to its moral core. I don't think it's just the "whacky whacks" who feel that way. Many prefer to not feel dirty about the values expressed by the current administration.

I think the tea parties reflect the number of people who feel the values of the Democrats just aren't right, but don't know what to do to change them. I have a friend who expresses distress with current conditions with Obama, but said there is nothing she can do. I said that she needs to express her convictions and not back down to the weasles of the world. Maybe more of us should wave that tea bag. It obviously annoys the annointed one.

Go for it. Add all those "moral values" to the resistance to additional taxes and see how far you get.

Jfor
05-05-2009, 01:07 AM
Republicans lost in 06 and 08 because they moved away from their conservative values and were trying to emulate the democratic party. Since 1994 the Republicans went from being the party of fiscal conservatives to being the party of spend like democrats. The democrats won, because they acted like conservatives.

If the Republicans will run TRUE Conservative candidates they will win again. The problem is with the Lindsay(dude with a chicks name) Gramm's in the Republican party. They believe in man made global warming. They do not want the US to be able to produce our own oil. They believe in bigger government. That is not what will win elections.

lacarnut
05-05-2009, 01:25 AM
I agree--but again, what I'm questioning is whether or not the Republican party can ever cut loose from their marriage of convenience with the social conservatives/evangelical values voters.

Are they willing to risk losing a substantial portion of their base with the hopes of winning back a huge number of moderates and independents desperate for fiscally responsible leadership?

A return to the traditional strict conservative policy--aka classic liberalism--would not mean letting the evangelicals form their own third party. Remember, it's 'values' base now calling the fiscal conservatives: RINO--republican in name only. The value voters have too strong a hold on the Republican 'brand' for the Rockafeller/fiscal conservatives to take it back.

The marriage of convenience either continues or the fiscal conservatives jump ship and form a new party with moderate Dems and independents. I don't see this happening--at least not anytime soon.

The way fiscal conservatives recite social issue talking points--fighting down the urge to wince. They into the 'marriage' for the long haul. There are a number of pundits that I don't believe honestly believe what they're saying on social issues--but they go along with it for the sake of party unity and holding the base.

There's an interesting documentary coming out that 'outs' a number of DC gay conservatives. They're saying that Larry Craig was just the tip of the ice burg. It will be interesting to see the reaction from both fiscal and social conservatives. The film is called: Outrage.


A heathen that does not believes in family values will never win the Presidency as a Republican. You and CW might think so but I don't because millions of people of faith (not the religious right) will not vote for a sleaze-ball with morals of an alley cat. FYI, atheists are a small minority in the US.

The documentary Outrage is being produced by who; Larry Flint with backing by Soris. I am sure you and CW will be all eyes and ears believing every detail. I think I will pass. Did you not hear that Obama had a sexual relationship with another man. Lordy, another Democ. homo.

lacarnut
05-05-2009, 01:43 AM
Go for it. Add all those "moral values" to the resistance to additional taxes and see how far you get.

Since you did not vote for McCain because he put Palin on the ticket, you will reap what you sow sucker. I might vote for the Magic Negro the second time around. I will be able to claim a couple of thousand dollars for sales taxes I paid for my new car and a portion of the cost for Pella replacement windows on my home. The boy has done cut me some tax credits off my adjusted gross income. So, I will be able to take several thousand out of my 401k if needed without paying any income tax on it.

I guess your immoral values are going to reduce your income taxes. Better watch out; Obama has stated that he is hiring 800 new IRS agents.

hazlnut
05-05-2009, 01:52 AM
A heathen that does not believes in family values will never win the Presidency as a Republican. You and CW might think so but I don't because millions of people of faith (not the religious right) will not vote for a sleaze-ball with morals of an alley cat. FYI, atheists are a small minority in the US.

Your argument is not backed up by the current poles and numbers.

Does not sharing your faith make someone an atheist in your eyes?--I'm just wondering how atheists found their way into a discussion on fiscal vs. social conservatives?

Also, I think if you re-read my post you'll see that I actually agree with you. I clearly said that I believe the social values base now has a firm hold on the Republican brand and it would have to be the fiscal conservative that cut loose and attempt to form a meaningful party with moderate Dems concerned about spending. This would render the Republican party dead for a few election cycles as social conservative would only be able to hold a small minority of Southern congressional seats.


The documentary Outrage is being produced by who; Larry Flint with backing by Soris. I am sure you and CW will be all eyes and ears believing every detail. I think I will pass. Did you not hear that Obama had a sexual relationship with another man. Lordy, another Democ. homo.

I'm sure if film is guilty of libel, then the injured parties will sue--Flint and Soris are very deep pockets. Unfortunately, the only defense is the truth. I doubt I'll see it, though.

No, I didn't hear that about Obama. I did hear, however, that some total lames on the far-right were still embarrassing the GOP by screaming about Obama's birth certificate. It's a crying shame what's happened to the party of Lincoln.

hazlnut
05-05-2009, 01:59 AM
Since you did not vote for McCain because he put Palin on the ticket, you will reap what you sow sucker. I might vote for the Magic Negro the second time around. I will be able to claim a couple of thousand dollars for sales taxes I paid for my new car and a portion of the cost for Pella replacement windows on my home. The boy has done cut me some tax credits off my adjusted gross income. So, I will be able to take several thousand out of my 401k if needed without paying any income tax on it.

I guess your immoral values are going to reduce your income taxes. Better watch out; Obama has stated that he is hiring 800 new IRS agents.

If you're trying to rub your racism in my face--it's working.

Being lectured on morals by a racist is like watching a pedophile teach a class on parenting skills.

lacarnut
05-05-2009, 02:28 AM
Your argument is not backed up by the current poles and numbers.

Does not sharing your faith make someone an atheist in your eyes?--I'm just wondering how atheists found their way into a discussion on fiscal vs. social conservatives?

Also, I think if you re-read my post you'll see that I actually agree with you. I clearly said that I believe the social values base now has a firm hold on the Republican brand and it would have to be the fiscal conservative that cut loose and attempt to form a meaningful party with moderate Dems concerned about spending. This would render the Republican party dead for a few election cycles as social conservative would only be able to hold a small minority of Southern congressional seats.



I'm sure if film is guilty of libel, then the injured parties will sue--Flint and Soris are very deep pockets. Unfortunately, the only defense is the truth. I doubt I'll see it, though.

No, I didn't hear that about Obama. I did hear, however, that some total lames on the far-right were still embarrassing the GOP by screaming about Obama's birth certificate. It's a crying shame what's happened to the party of Lincoln.

The last time I saw a poll regarding people that believed in God, it was around 80 to 85%. I was responding to an asshole like CW who takes pot shots at people of faith. Sorry that I went off on you. However, it is my opinion that Repubs/Independents/Democrats that want to crucify social conservatives will never get a Repub Prez elected. RINO's like Jeb and Rockefeller Repubs will not beat a me too Democratic candidate.

I was just being facetious about Obama homo encounter and I have to agree with you about Obama's birth certificate. If Obama was impeached, there would be race riots and many big cities going up in flames. However, the media dug into every miniscule of dirt they could on Bush. So what's good for the goose is good for the gander. That same old , same old deal.

lacarnut
05-05-2009, 02:33 AM
If you're trying to rub your racism in my face--it's working.

Being lectured on morals by a racist is like watching a pedophile teach a class on parenting skills.

Nope, I call my stepson boy who is older than Obama if that is what you are referring to.

Water Closet
05-05-2009, 07:26 AM
Since you did not vote for McCain because he put Palin on the ticket, you will reap what you sow sucker. I might vote for the Magic Negro the second time around. I will be able to claim a couple of thousand dollars for sales taxes I paid for my new car and a portion of the cost for Pella replacement windows on my home. The boy has done cut me some tax credits off my adjusted gross income. So, I will be able to take several thousand out of my 401k if needed without paying any income tax on it.

I guess your immoral values are going to reduce your income taxes. Better watch out; Obama has stated that he is hiring 800 new IRS agents.

You are really cute with your continued (it's been a couple of years now) discussion of how much money you have and have made, of FICO scores, of the IRS, etc. Let's cut to the chase, old boy. My girlfriend and I make more in one year than you ever made in 4-5 (as a very charitable to you estimate) of your best years.

Now, can we return to the discussion at hand and let the personal references and insults go?

Water Closet
05-05-2009, 07:30 AM
If you're trying to rub your racism in my face--it's working.

Being lectured on morals by a racist is like watching a pedophile teach a class on parenting skills.

Our friend here has a history of racist statements. In addition to his constant reference to Obama as the "magic negro," he loves the term "black beauties" to reference blacks in general. But, don't worry. He'll tell you "some of his best friends are black." :D

Water Closet
05-05-2009, 07:38 AM
I agree--but again, what I'm questioning is whether or not the Republican party can ever cut loose from their marriage of convenience with the social conservatives/evangelical values voters.

Are they willing to risk losing a substantial portion of their base with the hopes of winning back a huge number of moderates and independents desperate for fiscally responsible leadership?

A return to the traditional strict conservative policy--aka classic liberalism--would not mean letting the evangelicals form their own third party. Remember, it's 'values' base now calling the fiscal conservatives: RINO--republican in name only. The value voters have too strong a hold on the Republican 'brand' for the Rockafeller/fiscal conservatives to take it back.

The marriage of convenience either continues or the fiscal conservatives jump ship and form a new party with moderate Dems and independents. I don't see this happening--at least not anytime soon.

The way fiscal conservatives recite social issue talking points--fighting down the urge to wince. They into the 'marriage' for the long haul. There are a number of pundits that I don't believe honestly believe what they're saying on social issues--but they go along with it for the sake of party unity and holding the base.

There's an interesting documentary coming out that 'outs' a number of DC gay conservatives. They're saying that Larry Craig was just the tip of the ice burg. It will be interesting to see the reaction from both fiscal and social conservatives. The film is called: Outrage.

The recent tea parties give some hope of this, as they were relatively bipartisan and free of the social issues of the far right. If Obama drives taxes through the roof for the middle class, you might see a resurgence of centist Ds, Rs, and Is come together, probably under the umbrella of the Republican party, take real control. At that point the social conservatives could come along for the ride or not.

Lars1701a
05-05-2009, 08:00 AM
The recent tea parties give some hope of this, as they were relatively bipartisan and free of the social issues of the far right. If Obama drives taxes through the roof for the middle class, you might see a resurgence of centist Ds, Rs, and Is come together, probably under the umbrella of the Republican party, take real control. At that point the social conservatives could come along for the ride or not.

I love how a liberal says weither its ok if social conservatives can come along or not. CW once the Republicans give up those social issues this country is truly fucked.

Water Closet
05-05-2009, 08:14 AM
I love how a liberal says weither its ok if social conservatives can come along or not. CW once the Republicans give up those social issues this country is truly fucked.

I understand that from the far right everyone who disagrees looks like a "liberal," but all of the online assessments and quizzes I've ever taken indicate that I'm a centrist (you know, that group that ultimately controls the elections). And, most of us centrists feel that it's only by giving up those social issues can this country progress.

Lars1701a
05-05-2009, 08:58 AM
I understand that from the far right everyone who disagrees looks like a "liberal," but all of the online assessments and quizzes I've ever taken indicate that I'm a centrist (you know, that group that ultimately controls the elections). And, most of us centrists feel that it's only by giving up those social issues can this country progress.

Making drugs legal= Liberal

Abortion support = Liberal

Gay Marrage support = Liberal

Your views pretty much point you in the direction of liberal town.

You make me sick you fucking douche bag, you think if the Gov embraces leftist causes this country will "progress"? regress more like it.

So what you are saying if the Conservatives want to get back into to power they have to embrace many liberal views? fuck that.

Lager
05-05-2009, 09:11 AM
I wanted to take a moment to clear up what I believe, are two main misconceptions continually being perpetrated in posts like these.

1. The core of social conservatism isn't strictly an opposition to abortion, gay marriage, drug legalization or other pet liberal issues. The heart of social conservatism is a preservation of ideals and institutions which conservatives believe are at the heart of our founding and success as a country and people. Qualities like personal responsibility, individualism, manners, delayed gratification, moral restraint, a strong family, respect for property, honesty, sacrifice,....(you get the point)

2. Not all social conservative values are derived strictly from the bible or other religious canons. Many, many social conservatives such as myself, are not evangelicals, nor even religious. We are not spoon fed our opinions by priests, preachers, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh or any other strawmen the left wants to attack. Right or wrong, we believe conservative values are what strengthens and contributes to a smooth functioning society.

Water Closet
05-05-2009, 09:13 AM
Making drugs legal= Liberal

Abortion support = Liberal

Gay Marrage support = Liberal

Your views pretty much point you in the direction of liberal town.

You make me sick you fucking douche bag, you think if the Gov embraces leftist causes this country will "progress"? regress more like it.

So what you are saying if the Conservatives want to get back into to power they have to embrace many liberal views? fuck that.

Making drugs legal= Libertarian

Abortion support = Centrist (look at the polls)

Gay Marrage support = Liberal, probably, but it comes from libertarian leanings that it's none of the government's business

Nice language, btw, but typical of extremists who have no rational arguments. :D

Lars1701a
05-05-2009, 09:25 AM
Making drugs legal= Libertarian

Abortion support = Centrist (look at the polls)

Gay Marrage support = Liberal, probably, but it comes from libertarian leanings that it's none of the government's business

Nice language, btw, but typical of extremists who have no rational arguments. :D

No I see what people like you are doing to this country and yes it pisses me off. Funny you dont know me I am no extremist. I dont believe governement should redefine marrage.

All those beliefs at one time were (IMO) still are liberal.

I dont give a rats ass about what polls say they can and are twisted to suit the pollsters view.

Lars1701a
05-05-2009, 09:27 AM
Libertarians = Liberals in social issues.

Lager
05-05-2009, 09:34 AM
When you say "Abortion Support" = centrist, I would clarify that support for keeping abortion legal is centrist, but if you were to poll whether people supported abortion as a primary means of birth control, I think the results would be a little different.

Water Closet
05-05-2009, 10:05 AM
When you say "Abortion Support" = centrist, I would clarify that support for keeping abortion legal is centrist, but if you were to poll whether people supported abortion as a primary means of birth control, I think the results would be a little different.

Of course. I don't think anyone would say that abortion should be the primary means of birth control. In addition to the issues regarding the fetus raised by conservatives, there's the practical issues of costs as well as the fact that the procedure is not easy on the mother as well. However, the majority do favor keeping abortion legal, including the all-important center.

lacarnut
05-05-2009, 10:14 AM
You are really cute with your continued (it's been a couple of years now) discussion of how much money you have and have made, of FICO scores, of the IRS, etc. Let's cut to the chase, old boy. My girlfriend and I make more in one year than you ever made in 4-5 (as a very charitable to you estimate) of your best years.

Now, can we return to the discussion at hand and let the personal references and insults go?

A liar like you came out of the closet after being outed. You can change your WC back to CW so everyone will know that you have banned several times. Lars is correct in his assesment of your views and support of abortion, drugs, gay marriage and prostitution. Repubs do not need gutter trash like you in the party. Heathens that have no morals is not a party I will support.

BTW, when you own a house, a new car and have a FICO score over 800, let me know. We can bet on it if you like, say $10k upward. BWWAAAAAHHAA

Rockntractor
05-05-2009, 10:24 AM
Come on toilet you know a pro-life stand does not belong to far right social conservatives. The list of people that believe in a human beings right to live includes many centrists and even leftists. The desire for legalization of drugs does not make you liberal either. The use of drugs makes you liberal. Drug and abortion do not belong in the same thread. A user makes the choice to take drugs. A human being cannot make the choice of life or death before it is born. The changes the republican leadership thinks are necessary for success are socially liberal, fiscally liberal and environmentalist activist. This does not match with the mainstream republican base and will continue to cause a exodus of the party.

Water Closet
05-05-2009, 11:05 AM
Come on toilet you know a pro-life stand does not belong to far right social conservatives. The list of people that believe in a human beings right to live includes many centrists and even leftists. The desire for legalization of drugs does not make you liberal either. The use of drugs makes you liberal. Drug and abortion do not belong in the same thread. A user makes the choice to take drugs. A human being cannot make the choice of life or death before it is born. The changes the republican leadership thinks are necessary for success are socially liberal, fiscally liberal and environmentalist activist. This does not match with the mainstream republican base and will continue to cause a exodus of the party.

Of course there are individuals across the board who support or oppose certain issues. William F Buckley, for example, famously called for the legalization of certain drugs. Moreover, I pointed out to Lars that support for the legalization of drugs is not a liberal cause, but rather a libertarian one.

As to abortion, while many people oppose it on non-religious grounds, it remains a fact that the majority of opposition comes from the right, yes I might even say religious right. It's also a fact that most centrists support abortion remaining legal.

I'm not sure I'd agree with your assessment of the direction the party wants to go in. I think the party leaders referenced in the OP see the clear surge of support for fiscal conservativism and are attempting to steer the party in that direction and to simply dodge the social issues.

And, btw, I must not be a liberal according to your definition, as, while I support legalization of drugs, the only drug I partake of is scotch. :D

linda22003
05-05-2009, 11:10 AM
Of course there are individuals across the board who support or oppose certain issues. William F Buckley, for example, famously called for the legalization of certain drugs. Moreover, I pointed out to Lars that support for the legalization of drugs is not a liberal cause, but rather a libertarian one.



Not to mention that Barry Goldwater's wife was a founder of Planned Parenthood in Arizona. And that was LONG before Barry ran for president.

Rockntractor
05-05-2009, 11:24 AM
Your view on drugs does not make you a liberal in my book. It is your hatred for God and christians that put you on the left. I don't understand your desire to be on this board with your leftist leaninigs.Some people just like to swim against the current.

linda22003
05-05-2009, 11:38 AM
Wouldn't it be an incredibly boring site if everyone agreed on everything?

Water Closet
05-05-2009, 11:46 AM
Wouldn't it be an incredibly boring site if everyone agreed on everything?

I agree! :D

lacarnut
05-05-2009, 11:51 AM
Wouldn't it be an incredibly boring site if everyone agreed on everything?

I reluctantly agree with that:eek::)

Water Closet
05-05-2009, 11:55 AM
Your view on drugs does not make you a liberal in my book. It is your hatred for God and christians that put you on the left.

Then I still must not "be on the left" as I don't hate God or Christians. I hate attempts at imposing one group's morality on others and, domestically most of that comes from the extreme right. I also don't hate Muslims (I almost married one about 10 years back), but recognize the threat posed by extreme Islamists. And finally, I don't hate Hindus, particularly working as I do for a large Indian consulting company. But don't get me started on those Taoists!!!


I don't understand your desire to be on this board with your leftist leaninigs.Some people just like to swim against the current.

I think Don McLean wrote...

You see, everybody loves me, baby, what's the matter with you?
Won'tcha tell me what did I do to offend you?

samurai
05-05-2009, 12:25 PM
OMG, the voice of reason here! :eek: Thank you very much for posting this.

I am derided on occasion at my office by my sales manager, who constantly says "you and your principles". To me that is a badge of honor. It's easy to go down the sleazy path. I'm not much of a churchgoer, but have certain core values.

It's time the US turns back to its moral core. I don't think it's just the "whacky whacks" who feel that way. Many prefer to not feel dirty about the values expressed by the current administration.

I think the tea parties reflect the number of people who feel the values of the Democrats just aren't right, but don't know what to do to change them. I have a friend who expresses distress with current conditions with Obama, but said there is nothing she can do. I said that she needs to express her convictions and not back down to the weasles of the world. Maybe more of us should wave that tea bag. It obviously annoys the annointed one.

You're welcome! And you're right, it's not just the "whacky whacks" that still believe in morals and values, and can simply use their brain to figure out the answer to "Gee, if we remove the penalties and allow easy access to drugs, will usage increase?" is "Yeah, of course it will!" But in Obama's America, deriding and ostracizing people who stand in the way of his social agendas will become the norm. Expect a large effort to marginalize and ridicule those who don't toe the line and insist on speaking such "inconvenient truths" to his power. Oh, they LOVED the whole "truth to power" line when it was Olbermann and others attacking Bush, but they won't like it one bit now that their guy is in power...



I wanted to take a moment to clear up what I believe, are two main misconceptions continually being perpetrated in posts like these.

1. The core of social conservatism isn't strictly an opposition to abortion, gay marriage, drug legalization or other pet liberal issues. The heart of social conservatism is a preservation of ideals and institutions which conservatives believe are at the heart of our founding and success as a country and people. Qualities like personal responsibility, individualism, manners, delayed gratification, moral restraint, a strong family, respect for property, honesty, sacrifice,....(you get the point)

2. Not all social conservative values are derived strictly from the bible or other religious canons. Many, many social conservatives such as myself, are not evangelicals, nor even religious. We are not spoon fed our opinions by priests, preachers, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh or any other strawmen the left wants to attack. Right or wrong, we believe conservative values are what strengthens and contributes to a smooth functioning society.

This is very true, and I'm agnostic myself. But unlike many others, I'm conservative and I don't hate or fear religious people. Many of my friends and family members are religious. I share most of their morals and values but I believe in doing so for my own reasons, arrived at through my philosophy, logic, and conservative principles. And even on the places where we disagree, such as teaching evolution in science class, I can see their reasoning and PoV even though I disagree with it. (I don't mind teaching evolution in a Comparative Religion class that is an elective, I just don't think it belongs in science class).

As for an agnostic candidate winning the GOP, I think one could do so, if:

He or she demonstrated strong conservative values and an eagerness to lead and rally the conservative movement, and is sufficient eloquent to do it well
He or she showed they do not hate, fear, or scoff at religious people and understands their concerns and values and in most areas, strongly agrees with them.
He or she articulates logical non-religious motivations for conservative values so that everyone, religious and non-religious alike, can find common ground.

marinejcksn
05-05-2009, 02:23 PM
Not to mention that Barry Goldwater's wife was a founder of Planned Parenthood in Arizona. And that was LONG before Barry ran for president.

Absolutely. And Goldwater was so wary of the evangelical far Right, people like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell.

linda22003
05-05-2009, 02:32 PM
Wary? That's a polite way to put it. He thought they were fakes and shysters.

marinejcksn
05-05-2009, 03:17 PM
Wary? That's a polite way to put it. He thought they were fakes and shysters.

I noticed that way too late, I knew I didn't want to use that word there and it would come back to bite! :o

This says a lot:

"I think every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass."

-Barry Goldwater July, 1981, in response to Moral Majority founder Jerry Falwell's opposition to the nomination of Sandra Day O'Connor to the Supreme Court, of which Falwell had said, "Every good Christian should be concerned." :D

hazlnut
05-05-2009, 03:29 PM
I wanted to take a moment to clear up what I believe, are two main misconceptions continually being perpetrated in posts like these.

1. The core of social conservatism isn't strictly an opposition to abortion, gay marriage, drug legalization or other pet liberal issues. The heart of social conservatism is a preservation of ideals and institutions which conservatives believe are at the heart of our founding and success as a country and people. Qualities like personal responsibility, individualism, manners, delayed gratification, moral restraint, a strong family, respect for property, honesty, sacrifice,....(you get the point)

I wish that were true. If people could be content with preserving their ideals in their own families, homes, and communities (Church, neighborhood, clubs) and accept America as a heterogeneous society--then social conservatism would focus on state and local politics and remain out of National politics.

I love the South. Beautiful country, wonderful people, rich history, delicious food. But my relationship with God is different than that of people from other parts of the country. To the extent that people who don't even know me want me to have the same understanding of God as they do--that can never work. Soul searching is a personal endeavor, IMO--not a group activity.

I try to pass on what I believe is right to my children. Ultimately, they will have to make up their own minds about what they believe. But I do not have the right to force my beliefs onto another family in San Francisco, Boise, Kalamazoo, or Juno. If I believe their way of living to be so disagreeable, then I have the right not to travel there or let my children go to college there. That's Freedom. That's Liberty.

In my 20s, I believed that pro-choice was logical and pro-life was religious extremism. Now, in my 40s, after having 3 children (1 adopted, 2 natural) I have a different point of view. I see abortion as a private sadness. I believe that abortion in the 2nd and 3rd term is the taking of a human life, however, I would not feel morally right forcing that belief onto another person. I can talk about adoption as gift to families unable to conceive--like my parents, and encourage a woman/girl to carry her baby to term, even offer financial assistance, but to force someone--especially a victim of incest or rape--I can not do that.

I try to make an honest effort to understand where another person is coming from--what is it about their own life experience that has lead them to a particular belief.


personal responsibility, individualism, manners, delayed gratification, moral restraint, a strong family, respect for property, honesty, sacrifice,...

I believe in every one of those ideals. I also believe that how I define them, my personal understanding of those ideals may differ from your's. Before we contemplate how to reconcile our differences--I would ask, do we need to? Do our differences negatively affect each others' life? How so?

Remember, we're talking about social not fiscal issues here.


How does any marriage in my state/town affect you?


How does an abortion is my state/town touch your life?


How does a cancer patient smoking grass to offset the nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy have anything whatsoever to do with the safety and well-being of your children?

Water Closet
05-05-2009, 04:19 PM
Easy peasy, as my wonderful Aussie girl used to say...


...
Remember, we're talking about social not fiscal issues here.

How does any marriage in my state/town affect you?
Because queers are revolting and I lay awake at night thinking about what they're doing with one another and sometimes my hand...

How does an abortion is my state/town touch your life?
Because you sinned when you had sex (probably out of wedlock) and you should have to bear the consequences of that sin.


How does a cancer patient smoking grass to offset the nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy have anything whatsoever to do with the safety and well-being of your children?
Only cancer patients get to smoke grass! :mad:


And most of all, because (1) all those things are WRONG and (2) they piss me off because you're sinning and I can't!!! :D

Lars1701a
05-05-2009, 05:10 PM
A liar like you came out of the closet after being outed. You can change your WC back to CW so everyone will know that you have banned several times. Lars is correct in his assesment of your views and support of abortion, drugs, gay marriage and prostitution. Repubs do not need gutter trash like you in the party. Heathens that have no morals is not a party I will support.

BTW, when you own a house, a new car and have a FICO score over 800, let me know. We can bet on it if you like, say $10k upward. BWWAAAAAHHAA

Yes this is the point I was trying to make.

Lars1701a
05-05-2009, 05:11 PM
Easy peasy, as my wonderful Aussie girl used to say...



And most of all, because (1) all those things are WRONG and (2) they piss me off because you're sinning and I can't!!! :D

project much?


I can sin as much as I want but choose not to as its afont to God.

Water Closet
05-05-2009, 05:22 PM
project much?


I can sin as much as I want but choose not to as its afont to God.

Is it Arial, Times Roman, or Lucida Sans Unicode?

lacarnut
05-05-2009, 05:33 PM
project much?


I can sin as much as I want but choose not to as its afont to God.

Not to worry; CW (...oops..I mean WC) will screw up and get banned again. He can not help himself.

Water Closet
05-05-2009, 05:39 PM
Not to worry; CW (...oops..I mean WC) will screw up and get banned again. He can not help himself.

Not me! I'm being nice to everyone. Why Lars even called me a "fucking douchebag" and I didn't respond (and, lo and behold, no sanctimonious posters even made note).

Lars1701a
05-05-2009, 05:47 PM
Not me! I'm being nice to everyone. Why Lars even called me a "fucking douchebag" and I didn't respond (and, lo and behold, no sanctimonious posters even made note).

Cause you are one. Just saying.

hazlnut
05-05-2009, 05:53 PM
Not me! I'm being nice to everyone. Why Lars even called me a "fucking douchebag" and I didn't respond (and, lo and behold, no sanctimonious posters even made note).

He called you a fucking douchebag??!! I only got called plain ol' "douchebag" when he PM'd me a few minutes ago.

What the hell, man.? I put in the time. It's just not fair...:mad::mad::(

lacarnut
05-05-2009, 05:54 PM
Cause you are one. Just saying.

That made me laugh!:D:D:D

Lars1701a
05-05-2009, 06:04 PM
[QUOTE=hazlnut;134200]He called you a fucking douchebag??!! I only got called plain ol' "douchebag" when he PM'd me a few minutes ago.

What the hell, man.? I put in the time. It's just not fairQUOTE]

Keep on working at it you will make it in the end. Your well on the way. :D:D:)

patriot45
05-05-2009, 06:06 PM
[QUOTE=hazlnut;134200]He called you a fucking douchebag??!! I only got called plain ol' "douchebag" when he PM'd me a few minutes ago.

What the hell, man.? I put in the time. It's just not fairQUOTE]

Keep on working at it you will make it in the end. Your well on the way. :D:D:)


Kinda like the old LP, CW tag team! :D

Lars1701a
05-05-2009, 06:08 PM
[QUOTE=Lars1701a;134203]


Kinda like the old LP, CW tag team! :D

I call him a FD just for the simple fact he cant admit he is CW.

Water Closet
05-05-2009, 06:15 PM
He called you a fucking douchebag??!! I only got called plain ol' "douchebag" when he PM'd me a few minutes ago.

What the hell, man.? I put in the time. It's just not fair...:mad::mad::(

I know. Lars is amusing, but sometimes not consistent in his insults. In fact, he's a bit like...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNBNqUdqm1E

But, he is amusing.

Lars1701a
05-05-2009, 06:21 PM
I know. Lars is amusing, but sometimes not consistent in his insults. In fact, he's a bit like...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNBNqUdqm1E

But, he is amusing.

who is a bigger idiot? me or the person that comes to a Conservative board and lies?

Water Closet
05-05-2009, 06:34 PM
who is a bigger idiot? me or the person that comes to a Conservative board and lies?

I'll assume you're (or your in your English) referring to me. Pray tell me, oh honored one of the village, how did I "lie?"

lacarnut
05-05-2009, 07:31 PM
I'll assume you're (or your in your English) referring to me. Pray tell me, oh honored one of the village, how did I "lie?"

Here you go: Your Post#39 "And I'm not sure why I should sound like a poster called "WC"...ooopps...CW." Liar, liar.

hazlnut
05-05-2009, 07:36 PM
who is a bigger idiot? me or the person that comes to a Conservative board and lies?

This is one of those trick questions, right?

You don't bury survivors and absolutely no one is a bigger idiot than...;):p:D

Water Closet
05-05-2009, 07:39 PM
Here you go: Your Post#39 "And I'm not sure why I should sound like a poster called "WC"...ooopps...CW." Liar, liar.

That's a LIE??? :eek: A poster known as Water Closet from Pleasant Valley is a LIE? I guess it is to those who are very slow (PC ALERT!! "slow" means "retarded").

lacarnut
05-05-2009, 08:02 PM
That's a LIE??? :eek: A poster known as Water Closet from Pleasant Valley is a LIE? I guess it is to those who are very slow (PC ALERT!! "slow" means "retarded").

It did not take me long to out your dumb ass with that wacky wacky remark. Next time, if there is a next time, try to be a little bit more creative. That was too easy.

Water Closet
05-05-2009, 08:11 PM
It did not take me long to out your dumb ass with that wacky wacky remark. Next time, if there is a next time, try to be a little bit more creative. That was too easy.

Many people knew me prior to you. It's not hard to find someone who's not hiding.

Lars1701a
05-05-2009, 08:23 PM
I'll assume you're (or your in your English) referring to me. Pray tell me, oh honored one of the village, how did I "lie?"

By saying you are not CW.

Lars1701a
05-05-2009, 08:24 PM
I'll assume you're (or your in your English) referring to me. Pray tell me, oh honored one of the village, how did I "lie?"

/yawn

hazlnut
05-05-2009, 08:44 PM
The keystone cops are closing in, WC... Shag and Scooby in the Mystery Van...

What ya gonna do when the come for you? Bad Boys... Bad Boys...:cool::cool:

Water Closet
05-05-2009, 08:47 PM
By saying you are not CW.

When did I say that other than the obvious, except to the very slow, joke cited by lacarnut?

Water Closet
05-05-2009, 08:49 PM
The keystone cops are closing in, WC... Shag and Scooby in the Mystery Van...

What ya gonna do when the come for you? Bad Boys... Bad Boys...:cool::cool:

I don't know. Order a bottle of wine and a good looking escort? :confused: :D

lacarnut
05-05-2009, 08:50 PM
Many people knew me prior to you. It's not hard to find someone who's not hiding.

So what, I did not need any help. After your wacky wacky comment, I checked you out and low and behold you had 10 friends listed with only 200 posts; put 2 and 2 together. Consequently, CW is a liar by representing itself as WC.

Water Closet
05-05-2009, 08:57 PM
So what, I did not need any help. After your wacky wacky comment, I checked you out and low and behold you had 10 friends listed with only 200 posts; put 2 and 2 together. Consequently, CW is a liar by representing itself as WC.

Most people knew well before the "whacky-whacky" comment (which was obviously not accidental). And, Jeez, this is sort of schoolyard stuff -- "CW is a liar by representing itself as WC." My God man, you're pushing 70; haven't you outgrown it by now? :eek:

hazlnut
05-05-2009, 08:58 PM
So what, I did not need any help. After your wacky wacky comment, I checked you out and low and behold you had 10 friends listed with only 200 posts; put 2 and 2 together. Consequently, CW is a liar by representing itself as WC.

I knew it, I knew it!!! It was Professor Plum in the Jacuzzi with a Glass Dildo!!!

Mrs. Peacock had it coming... Slut.

I totally rule at this game...

Water Closet
05-05-2009, 09:09 PM
I knew it, I knew it!!! It was Professor Plum in the Jacuzzi with a Glass Dildo!!!

Mrs. Peacock had it coming... Slut.

I totally rule at this game...

I bet Sherlock didn't even notice that five of those ten friends were female and, in fact, five of the longer-term, most-respected female members of this board. Quite an accomplishment for a prostitute-loving misogynist as this Cold Warrior person was supposed to be!

Lager
05-06-2009, 10:24 AM
I believe in every one of those ideals. I also believe that how I define them, my personal understanding of those ideals may differ from your's. Before we contemplate how to reconcile our differences--I would ask, do we need to? Do our differences negatively affect each others' life? How so?



Unfortunately there has to be some consensus as to what positive and desireable qualities are beneficial, and arguably necessary, to a society, and what defines them. You sound like you mean well. But you also sound like one who so wants to show how tolerant they are, and is extremely careful not to cause offense.

Honesty, kindness, respect for property, personal responsibility, etc., these are not traits that depend on one's point of view or moral relevance.

There are certain ideals and shared values that are needed in a polite, civilized society and you can't dilute their value by making them so wishy-washy and arbitrary. They don't have to come from religion, though it's not hard to fathom why most do.

You say you believe that abortion after a certain period of time is taking a life, but on the other hand, you state you wouldn't want to deny anyone the choice to do just that.

hazlnut
05-06-2009, 12:31 PM
Unfortunately there has to be some consensus as to what positive and desireable qualities are beneficial, and arguably necessary, to a society, and what defines them. You sound like you mean well. But you also sound like one who so wants to show how tolerant they are, and is extremely careful not to cause offense.

I think of myself as a pragmatists and a realist. I'm sure my personal beliefs, even my lifestyle, may offend people in other parts this country, however, since my beliefs have no bearing whatsoever on their lives, then their interest in what I'm doing or thinking is pointless.

e.g. -- Utah taking action to affect how Californians vote on our own state ballot measure, Prop 8.-- My response to the perhaps well-meaning people of Utah: Stay the fuck outta my state you backwards Mormon fucks. You and your little made-up religion and funky underwear can got to hell. As much as I dislike the Feds getting involved in state issues--when another fucking state has the audacity to funnel millions of dollars into... anyway, I digress...

To the extent that both the far-left and the far-right have this idealized way everyone should think and feel is polarizing and contrary to the principles this country was founded on--individual freedom, liberty.


Honesty, kindness, respect for property, personal responsibility, etc., these are not traits that depend on one's point of view or moral relevance.

There are certain ideals and shared values that are needed in a polite, civilized society and you can't dilute their value by making them so wishy-washy and arbitrary. They don't have to come from religion, though it's not hard to fathom why most do.

You bring up a good point. In this country we do seem to award people for not having these qualities. Professional athletes, movie stars, business tycoons....


You say you believe that abortion after a certain period of time is taking a life, but on the other hand, you state you wouldn't want to deny anyone the choice to do just that.

I will PM you my response...

samurai
05-06-2009, 01:01 PM
I think of myself as a pragmatists and a realist. I'm sure my personal beliefs, even my lifestyle, may offend people in other parts this country, however, since my beliefs have no bearing whatsoever on their lives, then their interest in what I'm doing or thinking is pointless.

e.g. -- Utah taking action to affect how Californians vote on our own state ballot measure, Prop 8.-- My response to the perhaps well-meaning people of Utah: Stay the fuck outta my state you backwards Mormon fucks. You and your little made-up religion and funky underwear can got to hell. As much as I dislike the Feds getting involved in state issues--when another fucking state has the audacity to funnel millions of dollars into... anyway, I digress...

To the extent that both the far-left and the far-right have this idealized way everyone should think and feel is polarizing and contrary to the principles this country was founded on--individual freedom, liberty.



You bring up a good point. In this country we do seem to award people for not having these qualities. Professional athletes, movie stars, business tycoons....



I will PM you my response...

The state of Utah does not = "the Mormon church". There are plenty of non-Mormons in the state, and there are plenty of Mormons living right here in California. So hating an entire state because it's the HQ of a nationwide (and international) religion is ridiculous.

As for your point that your life has no bearing on theirs, you're correct IF, and only if, you don't try to change the laws of this country to force mandatory acceptance, recognition and benefits/rewards for your lifestyle upon everyone else in the country. Requiring businesses and people to treat gay couples the same as a married couple or else face lawsuits or legal prosecution for discrimination when their religion or values conflicts with that goes far beyond "leave us alone in our personal lives" and into outlawing one set of values and beliefs and enshrining with the power of law a different set of values and beliefs. The outdated sodomy laws were a real case of the government forcing its way into peoples' bedrooms and were wrong. But changing the definition of marriage, and being able to sue or prosecute anyone who disagrees, is the antithesis of "stay out of our bedrooms", it's instead forcing government into everyone else's homes.

Finally, in the case of certain crimes, "how does it affect you personally" is irrelevant IMO. If someone kills their whole family with an ax, how does that affect me? If someone rapes a woman I don't know, how does that affect me personally? If someone shoplifts from a store, the store might marginally increase their prices to compensate for the loss, but how does that really affect me, especially if I don't shop there? There are many crimes that may not affect me, but they affect someone... someone somewhere is killed, raped, or loses their property, and while it may not be me, it is still wrong. So, just because I'm not the baby that is being killed because they are inconvenient, that doesn't make it alright, anymore than condoning other crimes as "a personal choice" so long as they don't happen to target me personally.

hazlnut
05-06-2009, 02:54 PM
The state of Utah does not = "the Mormon church". There are plenty of non-Mormons in the state, and there are plenty of Mormons living right here in California. So hating an entire state because it's the HQ of a nationwide (and international) religion is ridiculous.

You are absolutely right. My apologies to the state of Utah. Utah is incredible, beautiful country. I indeed failed to recognize the beauty of the forest through the ugliness of some of the trees. I am sorry. Okay?:o:o

Colorado is awesome as well.;)


As for your point that your life has no bearing on theirs, you're correct IF, and only if, you don't try to change the laws of this country to force mandatory acceptance, recognition and benefits/rewards for your lifestyle upon everyone else in the country.

Agreed.


Requiring businesses and people to treat gay couples the same as a married couple or else face lawsuits or legal prosecution for discrimination when their religion or values conflicts with that goes far beyond "leave us alone in our personal lives" and into outlawing one set of values and beliefs and enshrining with the power of law a different set of values and beliefs. The outdated sodomy laws were a real case of the government forcing its way into peoples' bedrooms and were wrong. But changing the definition of marriage, and being able to sue or prosecute anyone who disagrees, is the antithesis of "stay out of our bedrooms", it's instead forcing government into everyone else's homes.

Now I think we're getting into semantics. The government does have a responsibility as far as public safety and civil rights are concerned. You have the freedom to not associate with people as you see fit, but you don't have the right to harm them or restrict their civil liberties. We've already determined that separate is not equal; sometimes this concept has to be applied and tested in different aspects of society.

RE: forcing anyone to change their personal definition of marriage. Like I think I've said before, marriage is defined during the ceremony (after as well) and not in front of the clerk's window at city hall.

18,000 gay couples were married in California from June - Nov. How did that affect your life. Were you forced to attend the ceremonies or send gifts? This fear of redefining of marriage is happening in people's heads--not in reality. (a fear brought on to some extent by ads paid for by people who didn't live in the state where the ads were being run)

IMO, gay rights is an extension of the civil rights movement brought about societies' better understanding about sexual orientation not being a choice. Tolerance and acceptance through knowledge.

Last year's CA court decision found that Prop 22 violated the equal protection clause of the state's constitution. Checks and balances. Remember, it was Prop 8 that legally redefined marriage in the state constitution. The people supporting and voting for Prop 8 were the ones trying to force a definition of marriage based on their beliefs onto the entire state. We'll have to see what happens when the court finally rules on Prop 8.


Finally, in the case of certain crimes, "how does it affect you personally" is irrelevant IMO. If someone kills their whole family with an ax, how does that affect me? If someone rapes a woman I don't know, how does that affect me personally? If someone shoplifts from a store, the store might marginally increase their prices to compensate for the loss, but how does that really affect me, especially if I don't shop there? There are many crimes that may not affect me, but they affect someone... someone somewhere is killed, raped, or loses their property, and while it may not be me, it is still wrong. So, just because I'm not the baby that is being killed because they are inconvenient, that doesn't make it alright, anymore than condoning other crimes as "a personal choice" so long as they don't happen to target me personally.

Now you're talking about something that altogether different. Obviously the state and federal government have a responsibility to see to public safety and protect individuals from crimes. This has nothing to do with the point I was trying to make--maybe I wasn't clear.

wait--now I see. You're making the jump from homicide to abortion. It's difficult to have this discussion without getting into the spiritual and metaphysical--when does a soul enter the body, when is a bundle of cells a human being? etc. I would say sustainability is good indication of when a fetus is a human being--that is, at the point in which a fetus can survive on its own. But, IMO, even before that abortion is a serious issue--the taking of a potential life.

Of course, the Catholic notion that the soul enters the body with the 'first breath' (a belief also shared by Native Americans and Hindus) seems somewhat contrary to the church's stance on abortion. I think they try to hedge their bet by arguing that a fetus actually 'breathes' in the womb.

IMO, the morning after pill is in no way abortion or murder. As far as teenagers getting it over the counter, I need to hear more about that and consider both sides before making up my mind. (a good approach to many issues)

Jfor
05-06-2009, 03:48 PM
Last year's CA court decision found that Prop 22 violated the equal protection clause of the state's constitution. Checks and balances. Remember, it was Prop 8 that legally redefined marriage in the state constitution. The people supporting and voting for Prop 8 were the ones trying to force a definition of marriage based on their beliefs onto the entire state. We'll have to see what happens when the court finally rules on Prop 8.





That is what is wrong with this country. The majority of people in California voted for Prop 8. Now the courts are going to decide once again, what the law should be. That is wrong.

samurai
05-06-2009, 08:12 PM
You are absolutely right. My apologies to the state of Utah. Utah is incredible, beautiful country. I indeed failed to recognize the beauty of the forest through the ugliness of some of the trees. I am sorry. Okay?:o:o

Colorado is awesome as well.;)



Agreed.



Now I think we're getting into semantics. The government does have a responsibility as far as public safety and civil rights are concerned. You have the freedom to not associate with people as you see fit, but you don't have the right to harm them or restrict their civil liberties. We've already determined that separate is not equal; sometimes this concept has to be applied and tested in different aspects of society.

RE: forcing anyone to change their personal definition of marriage. Like I think I've said before, marriage is defined during the ceremony (after as well) and not in front of the clerk's window at city hall.

18,000 gay couples were married in California from June - Nov. How did that affect your life. Were you forced to attend the ceremonies or send gifts? This fear of redefining of marriage is happening in people's heads--not in reality. (a fear brought on to some extent by ads paid for by people who didn't live in the state where the ads were being run)

IMO, gay rights is an extension of the civil rights movement brought about societies' better understanding about sexual orientation not being a choice. Tolerance and acceptance through knowledge.

Last year's CA court decision found that Prop 22 violated the equal protection clause of the state's constitution. Checks and balances. Remember, it was Prop 8 that legally redefined marriage in the state constitution. The people supporting and voting for Prop 8 were the ones trying to force a definition of marriage based on their beliefs onto the entire state. We'll have to see what happens when the court finally rules on Prop 8.



Now you're talking about something that altogether different. Obviously the state and federal government have a responsibility to see to public safety and protect individuals from crimes. This has nothing to do with the point I was trying to make--maybe I wasn't clear.

wait--now I see. You're making the jump from homicide to abortion. It's difficult to have this discussion without getting into the spiritual and metaphysical--when does a soul enter the body, when is a bundle of cells a human being? etc. I would say sustainability is good indication of when a fetus is a human being--that is, at the point in which a fetus can survive on its own. But, IMO, even before that abortion is a serious issue--the taking of a potential life.

Of course, the Catholic notion that the soul enters the body with the 'first breath' (a belief also shared by Native Americans and Hindus) seems somewhat contrary to the church's stance on abortion. I think they try to hedge their bet by arguing that a fetus actually 'breathes' in the womb.

IMO, the morning after pill is in no way abortion or murder. As far as teenagers getting it over the counter, I need to hear more about that and consider both sides before making up my mind. (a good approach to many issues)

Prop 8: No, it was not Prop 8 that legally redefined marriage, it was the activist judges that struck down the previously passed initiative that was the will of the people, and then refused to belay the implementation of their decision until a new, constitutional version (Prop 8) could be passed. Prop 8 restored the status quo, it was not a redefinition of marriage.

Abortion: Personally, I believe that we should use the same standards for determining life as we typically do death: brain activity. The brain in a fetus becomes active in the 2nd trimester, and at that point, I believe it has become a thinking, feeling human being. Before then, IMHO it is a potential human being and deserves a great deal of respect for that, but I would not be opposed to a mother choosing an abortion at that stage, such as the morning after pill. However, I realize that others disagree with my belief on when life begins, and even if I don't agree with their belief, I can understand and respect it.

Molon Labe
05-06-2009, 08:44 PM
Jeb Bush is a moron for saying this. Just another reason why the Bush family has been so wrong for the Republican party and conservatism is on the outs.

Rockntractor
05-06-2009, 08:59 PM
It would appear there is no chance the Republican Party is going to move more towards the conservative side. With McCain still being used as a party spokesman and Newt Gingrich standing up for Michael Steele they will continue down the path to self-destruction. The Dems would really have to screw up in a big way to lose an election now. Prepare to live in a socialist country.

Molon Labe
05-06-2009, 09:21 PM
It would appear there is no chance the Republican Party is going to move more towards the conservative side. With McCain still being used as a party spokesman and Newt Gingrich standing up for Michael Steele they will continue down the path to self-destruction. The Dems would really have to screw up in a big way to lose an election now. Prepare to live in a socialist country.

Right...just another reason we didn't learn a damn thing. That was abundantly clear last evening at my local Republican meeting. They hold up our establishment Attorney General nominee as if he were the only choice, when the real conservative who has some principle and will not cow to TPTB is given second billing. He had no literature available and he did not a have a "Chatty Cathy" spokesperson to rant about how
"conservative" he is. :rolleyes:

Read Buchanan's newest editorial...."Dead Elephants". He's closer to the truth than people believe.
Mark my word. This party will either be closer to what I try to suggest in my opinions or it will probably go the way of the dodo after 2012 if it doesn't figure it out that it's going the wrong way. I voted 3rd party for the first time EVER. There's more of this than people want to believe.

Rockntractor
05-06-2009, 09:31 PM
Dead elephants. Will read. Thank you!

Molon Labe
05-06-2009, 09:34 PM
Dead elephants. Will read. Thank you!

http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/theres_always_2012/

Rockntractor
05-06-2009, 09:47 PM
Good article. We have to run a candidate that excites the conservative base and gets them to show up. A Bush, McCain, Dole type candidate will not make them show up. We will need above average turnout to overcome voter fraud, acorn etc. No more politically correct candidates. America allready has a liberal choice we need to stop trying to out do them on liberal issues.

FlaGator
05-06-2009, 10:02 PM
The last thing conservatives need is another wimpy ass Repub like Daddy Bush and Jr. Jeb needs to shut the f. up.

As a person from Florida who speaks with some knowledge, JEB was an excellent Governor and he is exactly right about letting go of the past and looking ahead to the future. How can someone accurately go forward if they keep their eyes fixed on where they were?

SaintLouieWoman
05-06-2009, 10:05 PM
Good article. We have to run a candidate that excites the conservative base and gets them to show up. A Bush, McCain, Dole type candidate will not make them show up. We will need above average turnout to overcome voter fraud, acorn etc. No more politically correct candidates. America allready has a liberal choice we need to stop trying to out do them on liberal issues.

Did anyone watch Hannity tonight? He had a guest, Maria Conchita Alonso, an actress. I thought, "Oh no, another lib pinhead." (excuse me for borrowing O'Reilly's term).

I was waiting for her to do the libspeak. Was I ever wrong. She's a good looking woman who talks very plainly. She's passionate in her conservative views. She basically said what many of us say---that we need to do for ourselves, not depend on the government.

She's be one heck of a campaigner with Palin, a very attractive woman who doesn't hesitate to state her common sense views.

Also, does anyone else wonder why the dims are so afraid of Palin and going to such great lengths to continue trashing her? She had way more guts and fire than any of the moderate Republicans.

Rockntractor
05-06-2009, 10:23 PM
Did anyone watch Hannity tonight? He had a guest, Maria Conchita Alonso, an actress. I thought, "Oh no, another lib pinhead." (excuse me for borrowing O'Reilly's term).

I was waiting for her to do the libspeak. Was I ever wrong. She's a good looking woman who talks very plainly. She's passionate in her conservative views. She basically said what many of us say---that we need to do for ourselves, not depend on the government.

She's be one heck of a campaigner with Palin, a very attractive woman who doesn't hesitate to state her common sense views.

Also, does anyone else wonder why the dims are so afraid of Palin and going to such great lengths to continue trashing her? She had way more guts and fire than any of the moderate Republicans.
I would vote for a good honest conservative person like Sarah in a heartbeat!

lacarnut
05-07-2009, 01:54 AM
As a person from Florida who speaks with some knowledge, JEB was an excellent Governor and he is exactly right about letting go of the past and looking ahead to the future. How can someone accurately go forward if they keep their eyes fixed on where they were?

I don't doubt that Daddy Bush did a good job as CIA director; I don't doubt that his oldest son was a good Governor of TX. I don't doubt that Jeb was a good Governor of FL. I won't vote for another Bush because neither one stood up to Congressional Democrats, used the bully pupit to advance conservative principals, allowed the democrats to marginalize them, allowed the government to grow, allowed spending to get out of hand, weak on immigration, etc. etc.

Why in the world would I want to listen to another Bush when his brother sank the Repub party into the terrible mess it is in. That does not make any sense. Consequently, Jeb's vision of where the party should go might turn out to be another disaster. No more Bush's.

The economy went sour; not all the Prez fault but he gets blame for the bad and good things that happen on his watch. Another contributing factor that many people do not understand, especially Repubs., is that American tire of war after 3 or 4 years. It is my opinion, we should not go to war if we can not win it in that time frame. I feared that this prolonged war would aid the Democrats in winning the Presidency and gaining a fillisbuster majority in the Senate. Obama and the Democ. are not stupid so they will make sure the war issue is off the table in the 010 elections. Screwing up the economy is another matter.

Rockntractor
05-07-2009, 09:29 AM
Another contributing factor that many people do not understand, especially Repubs., is that American tire of war after 3 or 4 years. It is my opinion, we should not go to war if we can not win it in that time frame. I feared that this prolonged war would aid the Democrats in winning the Presidency and gaining a fillisbuster majority in the Senate.
We should have paid for the war and rebuilding their country from their oil money. We spent too much time cuddling them at the expense of American lives. It's not the length of the war it is how we fought it. Our soldiers should not have had to behave as police men they are soldiers. All the court marshals against them for doing their jobs was a disgrace. This is not the place for political correctness

hazlnut
05-07-2009, 12:44 PM
That is what is wrong with this country. The majority of people in California voted for Prop 8. Now the courts are going to decide once again, what the law should be. That is wrong.

No, they're reviewing whether or not Prop 8 violates the equal protection clause of the state constitution, as well as, the legal status of the 18,000 gay couples who were legally married last year.

What's wrong with that?

hazlnut
05-07-2009, 12:58 PM
Prop 8: No, it was not Prop 8 that legally redefined marriage, it was the activist judges that struck down the previously passed initiative that was the will of the people, and then refused to belay the implementation of their decision until a new, constitutional version (Prop 8) could be passed. Prop 8 restored the status quo, it was not a redefinition of marriage.

My original point: If you don't live in California, then bud out, this doesn't concern you. But just so you'll get the facts straight, which I think is important when forming an opinion...

The measure added a new section (7.5) to Article I, which reads: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

Whether you see it as restoring the "status quo", it's still a redefining of something. To the extent that the mesure is legal under California law is what is being considered.

I think the predominately conservative court made a sound legal decision last year, I have no idea what's going to happen in the next few weeks.

Jfor
05-07-2009, 02:19 PM
No, they're reviewing whether or not Prop 8 violates the equal protection clause of the state constitution, as well as, the legal status of the 18,000 gay couples who were legally married last year.

What's wrong with that?


Judicial activism is what is wrong with that.

FlaGator
05-07-2009, 02:41 PM
I don't doubt that Daddy Bush did a good job as CIA director; I don't doubt that his oldest son was a good Governor of TX. I don't doubt that Jeb was a good Governor of FL. I won't vote for another Bush because neither one stood up to Congressional Democrats, used the bully pupit to advance conservative principals, allowed the democrats to marginalize them, allowed the government to grow, allowed spending to get out of hand, weak on immigration, etc. etc.

Why in the world would I want to listen to another Bush when his brother sank the Repub party into the terrible mess it is in. That does not make any sense. Consequently, Jeb's vision of where the party should go might turn out to be another disaster. No more Bush's.

The economy went sour; not all the Prez fault but he gets blame for the bad and good things that happen on his watch. Another contributing factor that many people do not understand, especially Repubs., is that American tire of war after 3 or 4 years. It is my opinion, we should not go to war if we can not win it in that time frame. I feared that this prolonged war would aid the Democrats in winning the Presidency and gaining a fillisbuster majority in the Senate. Obama and the Democ. are not stupid so they will make sure the war issue is off the table in the 010 elections. Screwing up the economy is another matter.

I can't speak for how Bush Sr and Jr ran their operations before becoming President. I do, however, have a lot of respect for Jeb. He is a far sight better than what we have now in Charlie Crist. I think that Jeb would do a fine job as President and I'd vote for him if given the chance. However, I understand that too many people feel as you do for him to be a viable candidate for President. He is tainted by Sr's lack of backbone and Jr's unwillingness to change direction when he's on a wrong path.

hazlnut
05-07-2009, 06:18 PM
Judicial activism is what is wrong with that.

Explain what you mean? How do you feel that the Ca supreme court's current review of the ballet measure Prop 8 is judicial activism?

Jfor
05-07-2009, 06:24 PM
Explain what you mean? How do you feel that the Ca supreme court's current review of the ballet measure Prop 8 is judicial activism?

Because it changed the state Constitution to restrict the definition of marriage to opposite-sex couples and eliminated same-sex couples' right to marry. How can that be unconstitutional if it is a change to the state's constitution?

djones520
05-07-2009, 06:29 PM
My original point: If you don't live in California, then bud out, this doesn't concern you. But just so you'll get the facts straight, which I think is important when forming an opinion...

The measure added a new section (7.5) to Article I, which reads: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

Whether you see it as restoring the "status quo", it's still a redefining of something. To the extent that the mesure is legal under California law is what is being considered.

I think the predominately conservative court made a sound legal decision last year, I have no idea what's going to happen in the next few weeks.

Ummm... yes it does. Since all other states are bound to respect California's laws, and California's laws can be used as a precedent in other states, then every citizen of the United States does have an interest in the matter.

samurai
05-07-2009, 08:07 PM
Because it changed the state Constitution to restrict the definition of marriage to opposite-sex couples and eliminated same-sex couples' right to marry. How can that be unconstitutional if it is a change to the state's constitution?

100% correct. Their complaint before was that the law violated the state constitution. So the state constitution was changed. At this point, the court's job should be over and done with. They issued their ruling and the people of the state corrected the conflict. If they find some other excuse now to overturn a state constitutional amendment, that's just sour grapes.

And here's a big point:


Should the body whose job is to decide whether laws are constitutional have the power to eliminate or edit the constitution itself? Can the Supreme Court unilaterally declare that part of Constitution no longer applies and cross it out? And if the state SC can do that to this amendment, what's to stop the USSC from simply over-ruling the Constitution and saying that some of the amendments to it also no longer apply, like say, the 1st or 2nd Amendment?

Jfor
05-07-2009, 09:09 PM
^^^^ werd

hazlnut
05-08-2009, 12:48 AM
Because it changed the state Constitution to restrict the definition of marriage to opposite-sex couples and eliminated same-sex couples' right to marry. How can that be unconstitutional if it is a change to the state's constitution?

That is exactly what Ken Star argued. The justices appeared to be leaning toward agreeing. We'll see.

The 18,000 marriages won't be annulled--that was pretty clear durning the oral arguments.

hazlnut
05-08-2009, 12:54 AM
100% correct. Their complaint before was that the law violated the state constitution. So the state constitution was changed. At this point, the court's job should be over and done with. They issued their ruling and the people of the state corrected the conflict. If they find some other excuse now to overturn a state constitutional amendment, that's just sour grapes.

And here's a big point:


Should the body whose job is to decide whether laws are constitutional have the power to eliminate or edit the constitution itself? Can the Supreme Court unilaterally declare that part of Constitution no longer applies and cross it out? And if the state SC can do that to this amendment, what's to stop the USSC from simply over-ruling the Constitution and saying that some of the amendments to it also no longer apply, like say, the 1st or 2nd Amendment?

It's a little more complicated than that--there is a difference between an amendment and revision to the constitution. A constitutional revision can only be made by the legislature.

They are doing their job--deciding whether or not Prop 8 is legal.